Stingray: militarization of police goes underwater

The killing of black teenager Michael Brown in Missouri has shone a harsh spotlight on the militarization of the police. But the scary storm-trooper outfits, stun grenades, body armour and assault rifles are only one part of the problem. What about the part we don’t see?

American investigative journalist Beau Hodai is the publisher of
DBA Press
. Over several years he’s probed the inner workings of government surveillance and the growing links between the police and security services in the aftermath of Sept. 11, with worrying consequences for civil liberties and journalism. His latest expose is of the vast, and largely hidden capabilities of Stingray surveillance technology, which is now in use by U.S. police forces.

Q
: What is Stingray and what does it do?

A
: Simply put, it’s a device that impersonates a cell tower and forces cell phones within its area of operation to register and share information with it. Cell site simulators can be used for a number of surveillance tasks including location tracking, interpersonal relationship graphing, (tracking) ID of unknown “burner phones” and potentially, the content of communications.

Q
: Who produces Stingray technology?

A:
The Florida-based Harris Corporation. It’s a $5 billion-a-year defence contractor with contracts with several federal intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and other defence intelligence agencies.

Q
: How did you discover this covert technology tool?

A:
I discovered that the Tucson Police Dept. had purchased a number of Harris cell site simulators, including Stingray II, through Homeland Security documents obtained through a public records request, while researching a larger report on surveillance of Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Q:
How pervasive is Stingray surveillance?

A: It has become very pervasive in the U.S. among federal and local law enforcement agencies – everybody from local cops and sheriffs to the FBI.

Q:
If it’s meant for top-level security cases, how do police forces get hold of it?

A:
Primarily through Dept. of Homeland Security grant programs. The devices are expensive. In the Tucson case, Stingray and related (technology) totaled more than $400,000.

Q
: What kind of oversight is there for the use of Stingray?

A:
Virtually none. While the methods of use are not uniform across jurisdictions, many local agencies appear to be following the Dept. of Justice’s lead. The result has been deliberate concealment of the use of Stingray devices not only from the public, but the judiciary as well.

Q:
The devices are meant for “urgent” cases like terrorism, murder, etc. but is Stingray use limited to those?

A:
No. Both myself and the Florida ACLU have uncovered a number of cases where Stingrays have been used. None has a known link to “terrorism.” Furthermore, the cases I’ve seen seem to lack any genuine exigency. “Exigent” is a word that law enforcement (services) using Stingray devices have come to love. Officers routinely claim “exigent circumstance” exemptions to court order requirements for Stingray use. As a result they often seek absolutely no judicial approval in the use of this surveillance technology.

Q
: What are the effects that ordinary people should be worried about?

A:
Wholesale violations of Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure. Cell site simulators such as Stingray operate by (extracting) data from every single cellular device within their area of operation, which can be quite large. The bulk of data gathered by Stingray devices is illegally searched and seized from the cellular devices of individuals who have no relation whatsoever to the investigation in question. This is no doubt one of the primary reasons the Dept. of Justice and FBI have so ardently sought to conceal any information relating to the use of these devices from both the public and the judiciary.

Olivia Ward
is a foreign affairs writer for the Star. She has covered big data, and surveillance issues in the U.S., former Soviet Union and Middle East.

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.